[Avodah] Pregnant women's sakana brought on by sense of smell

[Chana Luntz]

> > However, one day is not sufficiently traumatic that it
> > necessarily or 
> > even in the vast majority of cases results in 
> miscarriage/labor - ie
> > the risk is regarded as not sufficient to stop all pregnant women
> > fasting on Yom Kippur (although it is on the minor fasts).  
> But given
> > the elevated risk, it does not seem surprising to me that any woman
> > who was showing an abnormal reaction to food would thereby be 
> > considered to have crossed the threshold into the sakana category, 
> > since arguably pregancy is already a borderline case.
> 
> CM responds:
> You write very logically on the subject, but with adr I do
> not think this is what is going on in this Mishna. It is 
> discussing a very specific syndrome,

The Mishna says merely "a pregnant woman who smelled"  (with the
explanation given by Rashi that she smelled the smell of a food and
desired it and if they don't give it to her she will be in danger).  How
do you know that this is necessarily a specific syndrome?  Why can you
not read it as being effecitvely  "A pregnant woman even if she smelled"
- ie even something so minor as to smell food and to have a strong
desire for it it is enough in a pregnant woman to require breaking her
fast. You don't need to be at the point of being rushed to the emergency
ward for a state of sakana to exist.  For example, a woman is deemed in
a heightened state of sakana for the first three days of childbirth and
yet in the normal course, a woman will have been discharged from
hospital long before then (the norm in England is after six hours, if
there are no complications).  Note that a secular doctors with limited
exposure to Judaism tend to be horrified at the idea of a pregnant woman
not eating or drinking anything for 25 hours.  We know that it is OK, as
pregnant women have been doing this for millenia, but caution when the
pregnancy is manfesting itself in any way different from the norm does
not seem odd in light of current medical practice.

> BTW, it seems to be generally accepted that we already apply
> the idea of nishtane hateva wrt to the menstrual cycle of 
> modern women as different from that in the time of chazal.

I don't know that this is "generally accepted".  I have heard a number
of poskim say that it is not nishtane hateva, but better nutrition that
has led to changes, and that if you look at (women in Jerusalem 50 years
ago/women in poor parts of Africa) their cycle is much more consistent
with that described by Chazal.  Depends who you talk to I guess.


> 
> Kol tuv
> 
> Chaim Manaster
> 

Regards

Chana

>